homelessdude:lennavan: Said to be 76 per cent accurate at identifying tumoursSo it's worthless.

Yeah, and I would be that number comes from the people who invented it as well. Which makes it even less than worthless - it is a scam.

[uploads.neatorama.com image 200x120]

The number comes from actual decent science. They really did a good job and drew the correct conclusions. It's not a scam. I have no idea if you need access but here it is: Link

But there's a reason this is in a wildly specific journal hardly anyone reads rather than the top journal in the land. Let me assure you, if we could replace shoving a camera up your ass every year with a simple breath test, that would be huge in the science community.

76% is worthless because it gets you nowhere. If you take this test and it says you're fine, you wouldn't bother getting the camera shoved up your ass. Without the camera up your ass, 1/4 of people might think they're doing just fine when really they have colon cancer. That's bad.

The idea this group has is great. I would say they proved the principle that you can possibly have a cancer breathlyzer. But a better marker(s) needs to be found to get that 76% number up and a larger more relevant population needs to be tested. The authors say all of this in the paper.

trivial use of my dark powers:The article seems to be saying it only detectsbowel cancer, so it's worthless for screening and prevention, meaning it's pretty much useless for colon cancer.

Bowel cancer and colon cancer are the same thing.The ability to detect a cancer is the same thing as screening for cancer.

But you're right, a method to detect/screen for bowel/colon/colorectal cancer does nothing to prevent it from occurring in the first place. However detecting it early (and subsequent treatment) sure does a hell of a lot to prevent it from getting worse, which is kinda the point.

lennavan:trivial use of my dark powers: The article seems to be saying it only detects bowel cancer, so it's worthless for screening and prevention, meaning it's pretty much useless for colon cancer.

Bowel cancer and colon cancer are the same thing.The ability to detect a cancer is the same thing as screening for cancer.

But you're right, a method to detect/screen for bowel/colon/colorectal cancer does nothing to prevent it from occurring in the first place. However detecting it early (and subsequent treatment) sure does a hell of a lot to prevent it from getting worse, which is kinda the point.

All colon cancers are bowel cancers. Not all bowel cancers are colon cancers. There's a whole lotta small bowel that is not seen in the camera-up-the-arse test since it only looks at the colon, which is why the breath test would help with detection of small bowel cancers.

Yep, you're right about the screening. I should have just specified prevention.

lennavan:homelessdude: lennavan: Said to be 76 per cent accurate at identifying tumoursSo it's worthless. Yeah, and I would be that number comes from the people who invented it as well. Which makes it even less than worthless - it is a scam.[uploads.neatorama.com image 200x120]The number comes from actual decent science. They really did a good job and drew the correct conclusions. It's not a scam. I have no idea if you need access but here it is: LinkBut there's a reason this is in a wildly specific journal hardly anyone reads rather than the top journal in the land. Let me assure you, if we could replace shoving a camera up your ass every year with a simple breath test, that would be huge in the science community.76% is worthless because it gets you nowhere. If you take this test and it says you're fine, you wouldn't bother getting the camera shoved up your ass. Without the camera up your ass, 1/4 of people might think they're doing just fine when really they have colon cancer. That's bad.The idea this group has is great. I would say they proved the principle that you can possibly have a cancer breathlyzer. But a better marker(s) needs to be found to get that 76% number up and a larger more relevant population needs to be tested. The authors say all of this in the paper.

It's hardly snake oil.

You link isn't loading, but I get what you are saying. And I agree that it more than likely has merit (maybe when the link comes up, I can take a longer look).

It is just that with the continual stream of medical breakthoughs, I get tired of hearing the disclaimers that come along with it. Certainly there is no magic pill for any medical issue, at the same time we are constantly bombarded with science that has not been fleshed out for whatever reason - usually because a particular researcher or research entity wants to lay claim to the discovery first. Stories like this just make me roll my eyes because medical science has mislead us so many times before.

If it really does work - that is great. For now, it stays in Meh-City.

Believe me, if this breath-test-cancer screening gets the numbers a bit better than where it is now, I will buy a luxury box seat ticket to the University Aldo Moro of Bari Proctology Prevention Bowl.

About half an hour ago, I farted. Sitting at my computer as I do most of the time, this is something I've grown used to. But this fart really farking stank. Seriously, it was like eleven dead animals with shiat mixed in. I was sick and tired of having farts smell so terrible. But did I do what the sensible person would do, get up and wait for it to disperse, perhaps taking with me the resolution to change my diet to better influence my smells? No, I did not. I took what I consider to be the alternate route.

I stuck a mint up my ass.

I figured that since it dissolves in saliva, my ass would serve a fair job of dissolving it, thus lining my colon with a nice minty extract and making my farts the kind that girls would like to make out with. Somewhere along the line however, I did not work out how the mint would be absorbed into the walls.

Anyway, around 20 minutes passed, and I had to fart again. Being of a scientific mind, I decided this would be where to prove or disprove my hypothesis, so I let her rip.

Oh God. It wasn't a fart, it was a farking butt sneeze.

The mint had dissolved, that much was clear. But what was left was spearmint jelly mixed with shiat, and it was all over my boxers and running down my leg as I ran to the bathroom. I cleaned up my boxers as best I could, scrubbed my leg, and tossed the underwear into the wash. So overall an embarassing experience, and one I wouldn't want to relive.

However, it was worth noting:That shiat jelly smelled farking awesome.

They have all kinds of great tests out there. Good luck getting your doctor to order it, the lab to own it, or your insurance to pay for it. There're tons of gold out there, too; access to it is another thing altogether.

Jedekai:My Most Favorite Post In The World (and relevant to this thread):

About half an hour ago, I farted. Sitting at my computer as I do most of the time, this is something I've grown used to. But this fart really farking stank. Seriously, it was like eleven dead animals with shiat mixed in. I was sick and tired of having farts smell so terrible. But did I do what the sensible person would do, get up and wait for it to disperse, perhaps taking with me the resolution to change my diet to better influence my smells? No, I did not. I took what I consider to be the alternate route.

I stuck a mint up my ass.

I figured that since it dissolves in saliva, my ass would serve a fair job of dissolving it, thus lining my colon with a nice minty extract and making my farts the kind that girls would like to make out with. Somewhere along the line however, I did not work out how the mint would be absorbed into the walls.

Anyway, around 20 minutes passed, and I had to fart again. Being of a scientific mind, I decided this would be where to prove or disprove my hypothesis, so I let her rip.

Oh God. It wasn't a fart, it was a farking butt sneeze.

The mint had dissolved, that much was clear. But what was left was spearmint jelly mixed with shiat, and it was all over my boxers and running down my leg as I ran to the bathroom. I cleaned up my boxers as best I could, scrubbed my leg, and tossed the underwear into the wash. So overall an embarassing experience, and one I wouldn't want to relive.

However, it was worth noting:That shiat jelly smelled farking awesome.

Fun story: one time when I was a kid something happened that made my burps smell like farts. I had fun burping in friends' faces and watching their reaction. It only lasted a day or two and I got better.

Looking back it seems I might have had an impacted bowel or something.

fusillade762:basemetal: Gives new meaning to your breath smells like ass.

Fun story: one time when I was a kid something happened that made my burps smell like farts. I had fun burping in friends' faces and watching their reaction. It only lasted a day or two and I got better.

Looking back it seems I might have had an impacted bowel or something.

homelessdude:It is just that with the continual stream of medical breakthoughs, I get tired of hearing the disclaimers that come along with it. Certainly there is no magic pill for any medical issue, at the same time we are constantly bombarded with science that has not been fleshed out for whatever reason - usually because a particular researcher or research entity wants to lay claim to the discovery first. Stories like this just make me roll my eyes because medical science has mislead us so many times before.

Just for clarity, medical science never misleads us. If you read the science article, it basically says "we did this test and got good preliminary results so it's worth following up but it still needs a ton of work." That doesn't drive page views or sell newspapers, so "journalists" like to slightly alter the conclusion.

A scientific paper about how feeding huge amounts of a single specific chemical that happens to be found in dark chocolate (at an amazingly low amount) slightly reduces the incidence of cancer becomes "Dark Chocolate cures cancer." It's the journalists misleading you. It's a huge pet peeve of mine. I also had a friend of mine write a paper with something like "this network of proteins and its multiple levels of feedback mechanisms is incredibly complex" that was picked up by creationists as "scientists prove life is too complex to have evolved that way, conclude only God could have created it that way."

Also, I already regret saying "never." The point was more, if you read the actual medical science, you don't see these misleading claims of having cured cancer, HIV and whatnot. You read amazingly honest dialed back "this may potentially lead to better cures but X, Y and Z still need to be done" instead.